Is Open Street Maps Accurate?

Lately I've been suggesting OpenStreetMap as an alternative to Google, NavTech or Garmins maps, on GPS' and GeoCaching.com. My logic is, OpenStreetMaps are community based so they can instantly have whatever you need, especially since anyone can add objects and make corrections.

For Geocaching the map can have trails, lakes, marshes, you name it. Many times I've been looking at a GPS and the geocache is just 200m ahead. I look up and there's a big swamp with no end in sight. With the CanVec, GeoBase, and various Trail Source data I've entered for my area I can now tell where the swamp is, where the trail is and how to get over there without being neck high in a bog.

As of Jan 06, 2010

As of Nov 28, 2010

Sample: Before/After I started editing

Sounds great doesn't it. However, every time I post a suggestion I get these responses that, "OpenStreetMaps isn't accurate enough, or doesn't have enough data to use as an alternative!" Ok this really puzzles, and annoys me.

The people with potential:

All the people making these comments have a GPS! If a road isn't accurate, drive, bike or walk down it once or twice. Upload the automatic GPX log from your GPS into OpenStreetMaps. -- most have this feature on by default -- Then use either their nice flash application -- find the area on OSM, zoom in and click the edit tab -- or you can use the Java application JOSM. Personally I use the Java version so I can do off-line editing. Within 5 minutes your changes will be active on any device using the OSM feed directly and all downstream systems will have it within 2 weeks. -- this depends on the refresh rate of the system, example: Cloud Make downloads seems to be twice a month. --

"But Google has more accurate data."

Well see point on accuracy above, also there something I've noticed in my area. The satelite view of Orangeville is off by about 15-50 metres to the southwest. Google recently has been adding things like buildings and such. But as you can see by the two pictures it looks like their tracing objects from the satelite images. Which is both good and bad. Good if your just looking at it for an overview, but if your standing at the location with a GPS, OpenStreetMaps will most likely be more useful in this situation. To play with the comparison tool yourself click here.

The Professional:

"Ya but NavTech, Microsoft and Google have a team of high paid professionals working on their maps. So they will be more accurate because their professionals." This statement makes me laugh. Who's more devoted the otaku fan who's passion could move the stars or some professional only doing it because he's getting paid? The response I get to this is around the lines of "but if that person is so good then it's pure stupidity that their not one of the high paid employees." This maybe true, but the only thing that makes a professional is training and experience.

Let's consider me. I'm a IT Senior Consultant for the 2-3 largest software company in the world. But one of my passionate hobbies are making the OpenStreetMaps maps as accurate as possible for all of Ontario. In the three months I've been doing this I've learned lots. Give me a few more months of trying different methods and how different would I be from that professional?

Just because your good at something doesn't mean it's the only thing your good at. I picked up making maps as a way to get outside and get exercise. There are, in my estimate, many more "professional" type people who can make maps who are not doing it as their profession.

Speed!

The one thing you don't get from NavTech, Microsoft and Google is speedy updates. Rightly so, since they usually want to bundle the updates as a package they can sell. About two years ago I tried submitting changes for the highway 9 by-pass in Orangeville. Navtech wouldn't accept my GPS logs of driving up and down the road repeatedly. It was because I wasn't an official government source. It took approximately two years to get the by-pass into the downstream systems that used NavTech data.

Being two years ago I figured things could have changed. Today, May 17th I submitted a problem with Google maps for the pond which no longer exists near credit meadows school. Let's see how long it takes to make the change: Google, OpenStreetMaps

Update:  As of Nov 28, 2010 all google's done is remove the lake and the surrounding creek.  So in over six months still not correct.

OpenStreetMaps can't be trusted:

I agree that vandalism can happen, like that person wanting to prove that opensource can't be as good as a commercial product. But once a case of vandalism happens it can be dealt with quickly. Everything submitted to OpenStreetMaps is done as a change set. These change-sets can be backed out, and have in the past. Then the users can be blocked from the OpenStreetMaps. Sure not a perfect solution but there are ways to deal with it if necessary.

For the person who made a mistake, see accuracy comment above, and fix it. NavTech/Garmin has had this road going through a field in Orangeville for over the last 10 years, which has only recently has been corrected. Mistakes happen in commercial products too! My entire point here is that we, as GPS and map users, can fix the problems instantly.

It's too hard to use:

The person who typically makes this statement has never seen or opened the OpenStreetMap editor. It's real simple, the hard part is getting the data. For a 2 hour hike it only takes five minutes or less to enter the trail.

Keeping people on Windows...

I've always said, converting a user to Linux is easy. Keeping them on Linux is the hard part. The reason, users expect 100% perfection from Linux, where they wouldn't expect it from Windows. An example, a new Linux user tries to get program X working, if it doesn't work by a single click I hear grumbling "Windows wasn't this hard". Eventually they do go back to Windows, and spend hours trying to get program X working on Windows, due to incompatibilities.

I always shake my head as they don't realize that it's not that Linux wasn't easy it's they prefer Windows and Windows problems over Linux. Which a preference is much different that a systems capabilities.

Recently I was reminded of this while trying to get games working on Windows 7. Out of all the games I want to play on Windows, I've got a total of 1 working out of ~30. I spent 2 hours yesterday trying to get even one of them working. Problem is the Direct3d is not functioning for anything other than 64-bit programs. Eventually I gave up and went back to Linux.

I guess the same is true for me. Getting me to use windows is easy, but keeping me on windows is impossible because I prefer Linux.

War on Piracy

Personally I have mixed feeling about piracy. On one hand I'm cheering for the big businesses, ya kill piracy, because I know it will only serve to allow the businesses to shoot themselves in the foot.

A lot of copyright holders are under the false impression that if people couldn't pirate they would have no choice but to purchase their products. What they fail to realize is there's a world ready to share for free, and the more they make piracy unappealing the more Fedora Linux, Ubuntu Linux, OpenOffice, CCMixter.org, Jamendo, Vodo, and many other places willing to share free culture and innovation, will grow in strength.

However with that said, I'm a little disturbed at the attempts to deceive the public for the purpose of gaining support to their cause. Not to mention the attempts to stop people from talking about subjects on-line --which I see is an attack on freedom of speech -- and the attempts to make it illegal to share ideas and content for free. Even if it's the content owner doing the sharing.

Out of curiosity, I causally asked around to find out why people pirate. I wanted to determine some of the reasons for the 29% piracy rate in Canada. Here are some of the reasons I heard:

Can't afford it:

Let's consider something. I haven't had a raise in at least 5 years. But in that time the price of gas, groceries, water, hydro, heat, taxes, have all increased. I hear them. Piracy is that gleam of hope at the end of a dark tunnel. Let's face it, a student who can barely afford their next meal isn't going to be able to afford a $300-$1,000 software product. Or to be able to purchase $100s in movies or music. From what I hear the highest piracy rate is those who don't have jobs yet, teenagers!

Although I really can't understand the big businesses in this area, they are saving potential millions in advertising, and killing piracy isn't going to suddenly give these teens jobs, or the money to purchase.

Not Available in Canada:

This one falls under the big grey area. There are many shows, or products which aren't sold in Canada. So pirating them is an interesting scene. There's no one in Canada to sue them!

The other category is the person who watches their TV Shows via pirating until they become available to purchase. I know of one case where the entire collection and movies were all watch via pirating, and the pirate also owns the entire set and movies when the became available. -- which begs the question, in those piracy numbers on the web, how many of the pirates are on both sides? --

Again killing piracy isn't going to do much for their profit margins. The pirates who purchase it anyways, are doing so despite piracy, and the unavailable content, pirates can't purchase it anyways!

Not worth it!

This one I hear and see a lot. Let's look at two examples.

1. The user who receives the floor plans for his house in AutoCad 2011, and needs to make a small change and export it into something more usable. This user doesn't feel the $3,995 MSP price tag is worth it for one day of use. Sure there are other ways to convert this data, but pirating a copy would be the simplest solutions, especially to one who's not that technical.

2. The user who is told the must have Microsoft Office. Most users only use about 2% -- in my estimate -- of the features of MS Office. Most users can get way with the basic features of GoogleDocs If that's the case than the $50-$300 for Microsoft Office is mostly overkill. Most home users I know open Microsoft Office once or twice every few month (if that). Last time I opened Microsoft Office was almost a year ago when I was doing a comparison wiki page.

DRM locks prevent me from using the software:

This one's actually a big one for me, which started with iTunes. To legalize iTunes it cost me ~$400. This is because of the DRM locks placed on Apple content do not allow me to run apple content on my legally purchased Windows 2003 or my Linux infrastructure. I'm half a heartbeat away from pirating my legal purchases, just so I can actually watch them, in more convenient locations.

DRM locks are extremely easy to break. So really their purpose is lost on me. My only conclusion is businesses use them to fool the weak hearted into giving up their freedom.

Easier:

In many cases I can see this. Going to pirate bay and browsing their one stop shop is much easier than searching through google, and companies websites. In most cases you'd have to wait weeks for it to be shipped to you or have to travel to the store. -- or in my case drive for 2 hours to get to the stores that carry the products. --

So the question here is, if piracy is killed, would people go to the store? Would they wait for the shipment? or would they turn to more convenient free software? If seen some companies saying the wont offer more convenient solutions until piracy is under control. Which is interesting, how many of those pirates will turn to the growing free software? The companies could end up loosing half their potential customers by waiting.

The Effects?

There was a question, out on the web, about how to combat piracy and help the economy. Well again people fail to realize that piracy is a symptom of a bigger problem. This, in my opinion, is why it will never die completely, until the real problem is addressed.

So let's look at economy. Which hurts the economy more? Pirates who would not have purchases if piracy wasn't available, or the current copyright and patent laws which slow down new products and innovation.

The way I see it having a 120 year lock on an idea does nothing but hurt the economy. In the free software community we get forks of an original idea, and then we get more choices and better products then possible from the original idea. So imagine this:

Currently we have Microsoft Windows 7. -- and I only pick on Microsoft because I know Ross is going to climb all over this one -- Imagine if other people could build off the Windows 7 source and build their own operating system. Now you'd have new directions new ideas based on the original Windows 7 design. Multiple companies would spawn and you'd have price wars, competitions in innovation, and a faster pace of newer and better products. Granted this would hurt the originating company (aka Microsoft) but if the copyright patient was shortened to 2-5 years they could make the initial money and move on, rather than the current system of beating a dead horse for every penny. For the economy it would be a good thing, more choices, cheaper choices means more money changing hands.

Bad for big business, but good for the economy. So really is it piracy or our current Intellectual Property Laws hurting the economy? I'm all for protecting intellectual property, but not at the expense of progress. DRM locks and lengthy terms really need to GO!

Is Windows Easier - Part 2

Just like my last post I want to bring to light that Windows can be just as complicated as Linux, under the same conditions, by sharing some of my experiences.

In Fedora if you want to install firefox, you select add/remove software from the menu. (and if your using KDE desktop it has a search the same as Vista/Windows 7). Find firefox, by search or click on the internet group, select it and click apply. It will install firefox and will show up in your menu system.

In Windows if you want to install firefox. You go to the firefox website, click the download link. Open it and go through the series of steps to install it. (I won't list them here as most have installed software on windows)

This is the ideal environment and both Fedora and Windows are just as easy to use, install, and generally live with.

Now when problems hit:

Last night we all sat down to play some games on Windows 7. The first game we plugged in was Hunter Hunted. We hit "The version of this file is not compatible with the version of Windows your're running. Check your computer's system information to see whether you need a x86 (32-bit) or x64 (64-bit) version of the program, and then contact the software publisher." We tried troubleshooting with the windows compatibility modes, ultimately gave up after 15 minutes of messing with it.

Then we tried You Don't Know Jack. This wasn't looking too promising. We tried other games and got a combination of this message, the game installer crashing, and hardware wasn't fast enough. (might be able to play that game after the 3d nVidia card replacement shows up)

After 1-2 hours of messing around, two of our potential gamers quietly left and went to bed. Well Lillian passed out on the couch waiting, Kimmy went to bed.

So I convinced Henry to play Starfleet Command with me. Our first attempt at installing the game ended with the installer crashing. But we by-passed the auto run and started installing the game directly. Clicked on the game and it crashed. So we poked around in the game settings and found a configuration program. This configuration program fixed our problem and we got the game started. While Henry was practising on the game I started to load the game on my work computer, which was running XP. It ran on XP with no problems.

But do you think we could get the two copies to talk to each other. We first tried the TCP/IP direct connection. It wouldn't even register. So we started disabling firewalls, as I figured they were the problem. We got the game to go further but still not far enough to play. So then I remembered I used to play this game using IPX. So we installed IPX on the XP machine, but Windows 7... ummm where'd it go. Seems there's no native IPX support, and we couldn't find it fast enough from Novell. So we went back to messing with the TCP/IP. In the end after 1-2 hour of messing with it, Henry logged out of Windows 7 and went to bed.

So I thought I'd go play the game a bit before bed. I logged into my profile on Windows 7, and game crashed. I could not get it started. Frustrated and fed-up I went back to my Linux machine and played there.

So my point... again!

Windows may or may not be easier to use than Linux. -- I personally think they are equivalent -- But when things fail, you can have just as much a mess in Windows as you can in Linux. I'm sure there's a way to get these games working by installing wrappers, copying files manually, or some other hacker trick. Point is Windows just got much more complicated that the general point and click.

Is Windows Easier?

Is Windows easier over Linux. Maybe. But I want to bring some perspective. It really depends what your doing and how you use your system. One Windows user I know, boasts that windows never crashing, and says that Linux is so much harder to use because if you want to use anything you need to compile drivers, software, and it's a long an complicated process.

As I said I want to bring some perspective here. I have a Windows 7 computer all setup for the purpose of watching iTunes videos, and playing the older windows games which I have kicking around. The graphics card in the computer is a 2d card --with a windows index of 1.0-- and can mostly handle the iTunes standard videos. But games it won't play. So just like any "average user", I ordered a nVidia 8400 GS (PCI) graphics card which was compatible with my system.

It arrived Wednesday. Around 4:46 pm - 1:00 am I tried to get this setup and working in Windows. I plugged it in and booted and everything was working smoothly, or so I thought. But when I tried to install the drivers for the nVidia card, so I could get all the advanced features, it died with "no compatible hardware found". So I contacted nVidia Support:

Chat Transcript 05/05/2010 05:16 PM
[04:46:14 PM] Hi, my name is Pavan. How may I help you?
[04:47:12 PM] Michael Carter: I just installed a new Geforece 8400 gs and when I try to install the drivers for 64 bit Windows 7 it tells me it couldn't locate drivers for my hardware
[04:48:18 PM] Pavan: I understand from your message that, when you try to install the drivers for the driver for the Graphics card you receive a message saying could not locate drivers for hardware. Am I correct?
[04:49:00 PM] Michael Carter: The exact error message is "The NVIDIA Setup program could not locate any drivers that are compatible with your current hardware. Setup will now exit."
[04:49:39 PM] Pavan: May I know the driver version that you are trying to install for the Graphics card?
[04:49:58 PM] Michael Carter: 197.45
[04:51:53 PM] Pavan: To confirm , are you using a Desktop or Laptop?
[04:52:11 PM] Michael Carter: desktop
[04:52:51 PM] Pavan: May I know if you had installed any previous driver version for the graphics card , you had uninstalled the driver and then trying to install the 197.45 driver?
[04:53:58 PM] Michael Carter: no. this is the first time installing nvidia drivers. Previous card was an onboard ATI. which is now disabled in favour of the nvidia card
[04:54:17 PM] Pavan: May I know if the Graphics card is detected in Device manager?
[04:55:11 PM] Michael Carter: no don't see it in there any where. But it's working as it's what I'm using to type to you right now.
[04:57:04 PM] Pavan: May I know if you have installed the Graphics card and connected the monitor to the Graphics card now?
[04:57:17 PM] Michael Carter: yes
[04:57:37 PM] Pavan: Thank you for providing the requested information,.
[04:57:56 PM] Pavan: May I confirm that Windows 7 is 64 bit Operating System?
[04:58:05 PM] Michael Carter: yes
[04:58:52 PM] Pavan: Thank you for providing the requested information.
[04:59:17 PM] Pavan: In this case, please boot the computer in Sage mode and then install the driver version from the link provided below .
[04:59:21 PM] Pavan: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_winvista_64bit_190.62_whql.html
[05:00:51 PM] Michael Carter: Sage mode? You mean safe mode? Will it not work from normal mode?
[05:01:12 PM] Pavan: I am sorry for the typo error, it is Safe mode.
[05:01:33 PM] Michael Carter: ok I'll do that once it finishes downloading.
[05:01:49 PM] Pavan: As the Graphics card is not getting detected while trying to install in Normal mode, for troubleshooting purpose, we are installing the drivers in Safe mode.
[05:06:05 PM] Michael Carter: ok rebooting now

After the rebooting and trying everything to get the drivers to install, it still wasn't working. Since nVidia support was closed I messed around for a bit longer, and noticed something. The Windows Device Manager wasn't even registering the card. Which means the problem wasn't with the nVidia drivers, it was with windows detecting the card, or the card itself.

Contacting Windows Tech Support:

So I explained the situation and the Windows support person had me try a few things. After that the Microsoft support person had me install and setup http://support.microsoft.com/ea so they could take control of my computer. The support person poked around in pretty much all the areas I did, with long pauses between each screen. I'm assuming to consult with other techs and documents. After all the poking was done, and still no graphics card in the device manager, the support person had me reboot. Still no go. So they had me power down and remove the card. (a 10-15 min process start to finish, and get logged back into EA).

The support person poked around some more and determined that the on-board card was working correctly. It showed up in the device manager and in the advanced properties the card was showing no problem. So the support person had me power off again and put the new card back in. Rebooted again the person poked around and the problem still remained.

By 11:30ish the support person determined that the card was defective and I should return it. I asked if there were any tools to verify this, the support person said I'd need professional support level for that sort of thing.

So after this I wanted to verify if the card was defective, so I didn't waist another 8 hours. In my main Linux machine I had a GeForce 6 series card. So I swapped cards. Sure enough the Windows 7 computer (after some tinkering) showed up. Wasn't a straight plug in the card and go. --Windows was also extremely sluggish with the new card, so I'm assuming I still needed a few hours of tinkering--

The GeForce 8 series card I put in the Linux box and on booting it detected the hardware problem. Sure enough this card appears defective. So I've sent it back and will be getting a new one.

So my point!

Both Windows and Linux are simple to use and install, if everything works! When it doesn't both Windows and Linux can get really complicated. (especially if your trying to fix the problem yourself.) In my case Linux found the problem within 15 minutes. Where with Windows, it took 2 techs (4 if you include Henry and I) and 8 hours.

So if your listening to that Windows user saying how hard Linux is to install and use, I suggest you check it out for yourself. I've got lots of horror stories on both sides. Especially if your trying to get it working on unsupported hardware. Examples: I tried a nVidia 4 MX series in Windows 7 and got all sorts of problems, since the card has no Windows 7 drivers. Or in Linux trying to get Dual Monitor support with a nVidia 2? and a Cirrus card which I know is over 14 years old.


Note: for those say ya but there are more problems on Linux, I'll respond to that one now. Every problem I've had to support, with Linux 9/10 I can work out some solution. With my Windows problems 3/10 the problem is un-resolvable.

I have a better success rate of resolving problems quickly on Linux over Windows. So if you've had more problems with Linux, so be it. It doesn't mean it's true for the rest of us. Not to mention after initial install Henry's had two support question in +5 months from his "client". One on firefox usage, the other on how to hook up a lexmark printer. No problems with the computer and the Ubuntu core.